[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: e2fsprogs 1.23 problem handling 2.2 version 1 format journals

On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:09:02PM +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-10-02 at 12:58, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Correct, but it's probably most reasonable to assume that those fields
> > are "reserved" (ie. must be zero unless defined in the future) for v2,
> > but "unused" for v1.  I don't think that e2fsprogs should ever look at
> > these fields for a v1 superblock, and it will just continue to cause
> > trouble for people with old journals if we do.

Yes, I'll fix e2fsck to ignore these fields.  (Actually, what I should
do given the paragraph below is to change e2fsck to *zero* those
fields for v1 superblocks.)

> Except it looks to me as though the upgrade code is *not* zeroing out
> those fields (from an attempt yesterday when I saw the problem to do a
> V1->V2 upgrade using a 2.2 kernel).  This means ignoring the misset
> fields just leaves a bomb in place to explode when the journal is
> upgraded (at this point e2fsck explodes when it sees the journal).
> Time to have a dig into that code...

Yeah, the kernel code should definitely be fixed.  On the e2fsck side,
I'll look into figuring out some good huerstic to distinguish between
a the case of a buggy upgraded V2 superblock and a legitimate shared
journal case.  (i.e., looking at the fields and deciding that they're
insane, and thus offering the user the opportunity to clear them out.)

						- Ted

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]